Re: Re: Voting choice for language changes (Was: "Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count")

I am satisfied, the possibility of group declarations, but the that lack: <?php use App\RestException\ // name "RestException", not imported to current namespace :( { Gone, NotFound, BadRequest }; ?> Unfortunately have to write so: <?php use App\RestException; use App\RestException\ { Gone, NotFound, BadRequest }; ?> It looks ugly and very strange. My proposition, the imported end name, if end of without slash. Like this: <?php use App\RestException { Gone, NotFound, BadRequest }; echo RestException::class; // App\RestException ?> 2015-03-11 11:08 GMT+02:00 Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>: > Le mar. 10 mars 2015 à 19:29, Marcio Almada <marcio.web2@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >> Hi, >> >> 2015-03-10 11:39 GMT-03:00 Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>: >> >> Hello, >>> >>> Le ven. 6 mars 2015 à 00:44, Marcio Almada <marcio.web2@gmail.com> a >>> écrit : >>>> >>>> You are right about this. I'll setup a yes/no vote + a vote to decide >>>> between E_WARNING (for consistency), E_DEPRECATED or E_STRICT. For me >>>> this >>>> is just a detail but maybe it's very important to others, so better to >>>> let >>>> each voter decide upon it. >>>> >>> >>> In case of language changes, shouldn't the 2/3 of majority be required at >>> any levels? >>> >>> >> I don't think it's possible. What would happen if the yes/no vote passes >> but the secondary vote doesn't reach 2/3 for some option? This would be a >> weird situation. >> > > Pretty simple actually: it would simply not pass because it wouldn't gather > enough support. > > Discuss the options, see what gather the most support and the better > reasonings and then suggest that the RFC "yes" vote means A, B or C while > summarizing the reasons of the choice for it in the RFC itself. > > A language change vote requiring 2/3 majority on a Yes/No and a simple > majority in an option basically means not requiring 2/3 at all, but 50% > (with 2 options) at most!